1. The part against the defendant exceeding the scope cited below among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) As to B, on December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 29,000,000 to C at an interest rate of 14.9% per annum and 48 months by equal repayment of principal and interest (hereinafter “first loan”).

(B) On July 12, 2013, KRW 94,00,00 per annum and KRW 16.9% per annum and KRW 48-month principal and interest equal repayment method (hereinafter “second loan”). In addition to the first loan and the second loan, each of the instant loans is “each of the instant loans”.

The husband of B is the husband of B, who actually used each of the loans of this case, as the children of Da C and B. At the time of each of the loans of this case, C jointly and severally guaranteed each of the corresponding obligations of C at the time of each of the loans of this case. 2) C began to pay back the debt of the loan of this case from February 20, 2014, and from March 20, 2014, the principal and interest of each of the loans of this case from April 15, 2014 are as follows.

Type 1 Loans principal 21,824,471 Won 49,570,571 interest rate of KRW 5,222,776 Won 15,712,978

B. B’s dispositive act 1) B sells the instant apartment in KRW 130,00,000, which is the only property of the Defendant, to the Defendant Doi (E-B’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’) on September 12, 2013 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 26, 2013. (2) At the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, three cases of the registration of establishment of a mortgage with national bank as a collateral security holder were cancelled on September 27, 2013. The sum of the secured debt was KRW 70,306,855.

C. B’s financial status was insolvent at the time of entering into the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant sales contract constitutes fraudulent act

A. According to the facts stated in paragraph (1) of the establishment of the preserved claim, the Plaintiff’s joint and several surety claims against B arising from each of the loans in this case may be the preserved claim.

(b)be in a state of insolvency against a fraudulent act;